Kids Win Again In Lawsuit Blaming Gov't For Not Fighting Global Warming

A child in the southern outskirts of Tegucigalpa on April 22, 2016. (ORLANDO SIERRA/AFP/Getty Images)

Against all odds, another group of children who are suing the government to protect the environment against the harm of global warming in their future, have won in court.

Again.

In a surprise ruling on Friday from the bench in the ongoing climate case brought by these youths against the State of Washington's Department of Ecology,
King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill re-ordered the Department of Ecology to promulgate a carbon emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on science-based greenhouse gas reductions in the 2017 legislative session. Judge Hill also ordered the Department of Ecology to consult with the young plaintiffs in advance of that recommendation.

The youths were forced back to court after the Department of Ecology withdrew the very rulemaking efforts to reduce carbon emissions that the agency told the judge it had underway in its previous court appearance, an interesting sleight-of-hand from a state agency. But Ecology only withdrew that effort in order to make better changes to the language and is back on the effort.

The lawsuit brought by the youths alleges that the Federal Government is violating the Plaintiffs’ constitutional and public trust rights by promoting the use of
fossil fuels. The basis for these lawsuits is that, for over fifty years, the United States Government and the Fossil Fuel Industry have known that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels causes global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels destabilizes the climate system.

This case is one of several similar cases in federal district court in Oregon, and in the state courts of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Massachusetts, all supported by Our Children’s Trust, seeking the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate.

Championed by Professor Mary Christina Wood in the Law School at the University of Oregon under the idea of Atmospheric Trust Litigation, this and several similar lawsuits claim that a government elected by the people and for the people has a duty to protect the natural systems required for the people’s survival.

According to Wood, if both the executive and legislative branches fail in that duty, then the judicial branch must intervene.

Most importantly, the courts so far have unequivocally rejected all arguments raised by the Federal Government and the Fossil Fuel Industry in their Motions to Dismiss that seek to deny the youth their fundamental rights under the constitution and public trust doctrine, and claimed that the government has no duty to protect essential natural resources, such as air and oceans.

Instead, the court found that the federal government is indeed subject to the public trust doctrine. Public trust doctrine asserts that the government is a trustee of the natural resources that we depend on for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For over 200 years the courts have affirmed this concept in various ways.

Most dismiss these cases as nonsense that will be thrown out of court and will never end up causing any significant change. But the fact that they keep successfully moving through the court system belies such a casual kiss-off. And the policy and financial ramifications of success will be significant.

In granting the plaintiffs a remedy, Judge Hill noted the extraordinary circumstances of global warming, saying, “this is an urgent situation…these kids can’t wait.” The court discussed the catastrophic impacts of climate destabilization globally, particularly the loss of low-lying land like Florida and Bangladesh. The court explained that while it had no jurisdiction outside of Washington State, it did have jurisdiction over the Department of Ecology and would order the agency to comply with the law and do its part to address the climate crisis.

After a landmark November, 2015 decision, in which Judge Hill found that Washington State has a “mandatory duty” to “preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality for the current and future generations,” and found that the state’s current standards fail, the Department of Ecology nonetheless unilaterally withdrew its proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions in the state in February, just months after Judge Hill specifically underscored the urgency of the climate crisis.

“It was absurd for the Department of Ecology to withdraw its proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions,” said petitioner Aji Piper, a 15-year-old who is also a plaintiff on the federal constitutional climate lawsuit. “Especially after Judge Hill declared last fall that our ‘very survival depends upon the will of [our] elders to act now…to stem the tide of global warming.’ I think the Department of Ecology should be ashamed by its reversal of potentially powerful action and today, Judge Hill issued a significant ruling that should go down in the history books. Our government must act to protect our climate for the benefit of us and future generations.”

“For the first time, a United States court not only recognized the extraordinary harms young people are facing due to climate change, but ordered an agency to do something about it,” said Andrea Rodgers, the Western Environmental Law Center attorney representing the young plaintiffs. “Ecology is now court-ordered to issue a rule that fulfills its constitutional and public trust duty to ensure Washington does its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the planet.”

“This case explains why youth around this country, and in several other countries, are forced to bring their governments to court to secure a healthy atmosphere and stable climate,” said Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust. “Despite clear scientific evidence and judicial recognition of the urgency of the climate crisis, Washington and most governments across the U.S. and other countries are failing to take correspondingly urgent, science-based action. That failure unfairly consigns youth to a disproportionately bleak future against which they can only reasonably ask the courts to step in to address this most time sensitive issue of our time.”

Dr. James Conca is an expert on energy, nuclear and dirty bombs, a planetary geologist, and a professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at Amazon.com